NRA files brief in high-court gun case

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Friday, August 15, 2003 | Jon Dougherty

[JohnHuang2]

The National Rifle Association has filed a brief in support of what backers are calling a potential landmark gun-rights case now before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Sponsored primarily by KeepAndBearArms.com, or KABA, a pro-gun rights website and organization, the case challenges "the California semi-auto rifle ban on the basis of Second Amendment protection of our individual right to keep and bear arms," according to the group's website.

M-16a2, banned in California.

California lawmakers banned a number of rifles under the Assault Weapons Control Act in 1989, but a decade later, the state also restricted the sale, manufacture, or importation into the state of all semi-automatic rifles having combinations of arbitrarily selected features – such as detachable magazines, folding stocks, flash suppressors and pistol grips.

NRA support, say the suit's backers, was crucial not only to lend credibility but also as a way to boost fundraising for the effort, KABA officials said.

The 28-page NRA amicus brief, filed with the high court Aug. 7, argues that the Second Amendment supersedes state law.

The Second Amendment says, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

"The Second Amendment empowers individual citizens to defend themselves and their property against the acts of criminals, mob violence, and even state-sponsored oppression," says the brief. "Only individual possession of firearms allows for the effective exercise of self-defense against such threats."

Brian Puckett, a spokesman for KABA, told WorldNetDaily that Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, the Second Amendment Sisters, Women Against Gun Control, and even Pink Pistols – a homosexual gun-rights group – have filed amicus briefs with the Supreme Court in support of gun rights.

The NRA brief also quotes 19th Century Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, who observed that "the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary powers of rulers."

"We are at a critical stage on what may turn out to be the most important Second Amendment case ever filed," said KABA spokesman David Codrea.

Supporters appealed to the Supreme Court after the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled recently that Americans have no individual right to keep and bear arms.

KABA said the suit "seeks to address at least two specific aspects of the Second Amendment, namely: Does the Second Amendment apply to the states in the same way that the First, Fourth, and Fifth amendments apply, and does it guarantee an individual right, in the same manner as those other amendments to the Bill of Rights?"

The case is named after its primary plaintiff, Sean Silveira, and the California attorney general, Democrat Bill Lockyer.

Clinton administration Justice Department officials also held that the Second Amendment was a collective state right, not an individual right, a point laid out in an Aug. 22, 2000, letter by then-Solicitor General Seth Waxman.

However, Bush administration Attorney General John Ashcroft reversed course in a letter to the NRA shortly after taking office, telling the nation's largest gun-rights organization he believes the Constitution supports an individual's right to own firearms.

[JohnHuang2]

Friday, August 15, 2003

Quote of the Day by nhoward14

[Joe Brower]

More about Silveira vs. Lockyer.

[RISU]

The right to keep arms was a notion borrowed from the Swiss when we established our constitution in 1776. (See "Target Switzlerland" showing how Switzerland saved itself from Nazi invasion in WW II by the simple fact that the people had their weapons in their homes. "Yes, you may invade us, but your officer ciorps will never make it home to Germany alive.")

What you need to keep the political people honest is "light infantry weapons" in the hands of the people. That means sufficnet power (automatic weapons if necessary) to fight of abusive insults. This gives the people the ability to fight off small groups of men who may be abusing their authority, and scavengers.

We need to talk about this "real" reason for having weapons in the home, and forget all the "hunting and fishing" crap, which those who would disarm us know well is going by the way anyway because of the advance of society from agricultural to city living.

The right to keep and bear arms is 100% needed to defend the homes and family lives against criminals, including any "wayward" government operating outside of it's legal charter.

[Blood of Tyrants]

An interesting thing about automatic weapons vs. semi-automatic weapons. In the Rhodesian civil war, the government was running low on ammo supplies against the USSR backed rebels, thanks to UN sponsored embargoes. To conserve ammo, the military ordered all it's troops to remove the auto-sear from their FAL rifles. It didn't make one bit of difference in the body count yet cut ammo usage by well over half.

Spray and pray is practically worthless.

[PistolPaknMama]

Second Amendment Sisters bump!

[Puppage]

Clinton administration Justice Department...

Clinton & justice should NOT be mentioned in the same breath, let alone the same article.

[Dead Corpse]

Whoa!!! Back up. Since when did the NRA decide to back Silveria? Or am I getting this on confused with the Washington DC gun ban issue? Help me out here guys...

[GingisK]

The right to keep arms was a notion borrowed from the Swiss when we established our constitution in 1776

Actually, this concept developed in England in the 1500s. An attempt was made to exclude the colonies from a normal British right and responsibility. English militia was composed of "common folk" who were required to keep arms and maintain proficency on their own time. They could be drafted any time the British military needed to swell the ranks.

[DEPUTYMAYTAG]

PINK PISTOLS ! is this for real?

[Vic3O3]

ping

[coloradan]

Neertheless, the JBTs here really, really want full auto, just as badly as they really, really don't want us to have it - or even semiauto.

[coloradan]

Yes they are, and they have said they get far more criticism from the left for being gun owners and gun rights advocates than they get from the right for being gay. So, who which side is the real hate group? One of their mottos is "Armed gays don't get bashed."

[Blood of Tyrants]

If you want to see the various gun laws disappear overnignt, get a law passed that makes all law enforcement agencies subject to the same gun laws as everyone else. Hey, if they are "reasonable and sensible" when applied to the general public, then they are reasonable and sensible when applied to police departments and the FBI.

[Shooter 2.5]

It's true.

Can anyone tell me where the "no compromise" gun group is, and why they're AWOL?

For all the NRA-bashing the KABA website seems to do, I'm surprised they didn't say anything about it.

[Shooter 2.5]

Oh, here it is. The KABA group can't wait to bash the NRA for something.

NRA support, say the suit's backers, was crucial not only to lend credibility but also as a way to boost fundraising for the effort, KABA officials said.

So now they're bashing the NRA for getting involved because they're claiming it's a fundraising ploy.

Those #ssh#les at KAPA don't seem to get it, do they?

[Stat-boy]

DC wrote: “Whoa!!! Back up. Since when did the NRA decide to back Silveria? Or am I getting this on confused with the Washington DC gun ban issue? Help me out here guys...”

Your memory is correct. The NRA was intentionally staying out of Silveria--to be fully correct, we should say that the California branch was staying out. Why? I cannot say, but in politics one must pick battles.

Nevertheless, I am delighted that the NRA filed a brief on the point of whether the 2A was incorporated by the 14th A. In layman’s terms, the question is whether states are bound by the Second Amendment. One unfamiliar with the bizarre world of Constitutional law interpretation by the Supreme Court could ask why are we making a mountain out of a molehill. The reason is that a certain case from the late 1800s, Cruikshank, stated that the 2A did not apply to the States, and the Silveria team needs to make a well reasoned argument showing that (1) that case has been specifically overruled on very significant other points so as to make that case irrelveant; and (2) Congress’ intent (based on the record of debates and on other laws passed at the time of the 14th A) clearly weighs in favor of incorporation. The NRA has a great deal of research and history on this matter, see for example articles by Halbrook at the following:

http://www.guncite.com/journals/index.html

I also recommend Kopel’s The Second Amendment in the Nineteenth Century, BYU L. REV. 1359 (1998), which is listed in the above site.

I have not read the NRA brief; I probably will tonight.

[Travis McGee]

Only well traned Law Enforsement Offisers shuold have such fire-arms.

They are much to dangerus for ordinary peeple.

[yarddog]

I have read more than once that there is a phrase in the Magna Charta which guarantees that free Englishmen shall not be disarmed.

I actually found a copy on some website and could not find such a statement. I still am not certain because the language is difficult and I am not sure what I was reading was all inclusive.

Does anyone know the facts on this?

[Dead Corpse]

No. Read it again:

NRA support, say the suit's backers, was crucial not only to lend credibility but also as a way to boost fundraising for the effort, KABA officials said.

Sounds like they are praising the NRA for jumping in adding their legitamacy to their legal argument. Then adding the fund raising benefit in after. Also, the statement you qoute doesn't say who's "fund raising" it is, but implies by tone that it is fund raising for the lawsuites backers. This is not a bad thing.

[Blood of Tyrants]

"I'm from the government and I'm here to help."